Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240713

The last project that was up, because thats also a flag lot. This is the full access for this project. Life safety is a major concern for the neighbors of this group. Im actually a developer as well. I build power plants, and life safety is something we take seriously. Having a single egress in event of an emergency, frankly, is something we are having a really hard time understanding, especially when a conditional use has to be granted by this body, saying that that is the right decision to make. So if there was a fire at this restaurant thats here, the building next door, residents would have no way in or out of this area. As you can see, this is the only access, ironically when this picture was taken, a house was getting painted so im not sure how residents would get in or out next time the house has to get painted. This is the property. You can see theres only one threefoot access in and out. So just talking about the fire danger, so i think one of the issues with this project is theyre classifying each unit as its own unit and not a permanent building so that allows them to only have one access in and out as opposed to a building of this many units would require multiple egress. All the buildings that are surrounding this have at least two ways in and out. Im not sure why these buildings on the interior should only have one way in and out. Also if there is some kind of catastrophic event like we had with that shooting and everyone is trying to get out via one constrained way, again, it doesnt make a lot of sense to us. Finally, nfpa is something im a member of. I understand there will be a fire Sprinkler System. There will be no gas hookups which means they are electric appliances so if there is a failure on the electrical side, the sprinklers will not put out electrical fire. Theyll put out the other pieces but not the electrical fire. This body is geared to approve or deny variances, so theres a couple variances i would like to talk about. First is the rear yard. So as you can see from the design, this project is basically using a zero setback on 17 different lots. And all of those lots have setback requirements. So frankly, the neighbors dont understand why this project should be allowed to have a zero lot line. Also while the developer is saying theres only an eightfoot wall that will be used, if you look, they are all sloped. So they are not not eight foot walls. They are ten or 12 going up to 20foot walls. The parcels on the back, as you can see on the next image, on the right, thats a 20foot wall. Thats not an eightfoot wall. Next is on density. So this is an r2. So you are allowed to build Additional Units with each additional 1500 feet. However, thats if you are including the setbacks and the year yard variances that mr. Fung, you brought up in the last issue. Those are not being respected in this design. This project is being built up against the fences of 17 different lots, roughly 40 different units. If you look at the variance application that was filed, youll see that they did not bring up the issue of auxiliary units. There are a number of auxiliary units, inlaws that are in various stages of legalization in the area. And also owners who are interested in putting in auxiliary units at later dates, i cant imagine this body or a future body is going to allow backtoback units to be allowed on zero lot lines so in essence all those 17 parcels will not be able to add an auxiliary unit should they want to in the future. This project which was brought up, i thought it was a great example of a project that the neighborhood could support. We are not here against development. What we are against are these variances which will allow for luxury condos to be built to maximize profits at the expense of us having our backyards. So you can see they built in the center of the parcel and they use the space on the outside to be able to create a buffer with foliage. The other thing i think is critical is theres a tenfoot access. Its the developer has three and a half feet of access which frankly is the minimum requirement. Its basically a breezeway. This site has ten feet which allows for access. The developer has taken Public Comment, but that was only after we got in touch with our supervisor and she reached out to the Planning Department and looked into this. Despite the Public Comment comment, the developer hasnt changed any of the plans since the first submission, which sounds pretty different than the previous different. Construction on this project which i cant believe these images were provided by the developer. They want to do this all by hand, no cranes, no equipment. We are terrified they are going to get halfway through this and run out of money. So, yeah. [laughter] so the developer brought up other flag lotses like the oakwood lot in chelsea park. I think theres two differences. One, they have sand pipes coming out to the street as well as the york, there was no sand pipes in this development. Further, access for the oak street is via multiple entries and exits on multiple streets. So if there is a catastrophe, there are multiple ways out. We dont want people in the event of a fire, i mean shelter in place, if theres a fire and im in my house with my daughter, im getting out of my house, and if i have to go over the fence, im going over the fence, and thats what we are trying to avoid. Finally, i would like to point out we are not we are supportive of Affordable Housing. We are supportive of a development in that unit that respects the zoning code which means it doesnt require substantial variances. It also would allow for something that is in the center of the lot so we are not looking at walls instead of fences that we currently have. We are really only looking for whats fair and equal treatment under the code for this project. So we want to avoid the potential for a catastrophe at this site, which is going to reflect back on the decisions that are made here tonight. So we ask that this project is not approved as its currently envisioned. Thank you. You still have a minute. Okay. You have been here a long time. Ill stick with that. Thank you. Okay. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. I understand its late. My name is abby. I own the unit at 662 the development would be up against my garden, my fence. The thing that concerns me most is the fact they want to use my backyard for their setback. I love gardening, i love being out there. And what actually is going to end up happening is the enters goes from my backyard out. So i know that, for instance, like the garbage for all of these units is going to be right in front of my fence. Thats where they have to roll it out every week. Thats my garden. What else, the courtyard, actually, commissioner melgar, what you were saying with the york project, the courtyard that they had building community, seeing children playing there, they have a courtyard, but theyve excluded the existing neighbors. We dont have any access to their units except by i just find that when you said that comment, that really struck me. Again, brandon really presented it really well about building the auxiliary units and just visual impact, but thats it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Im on 1821 fulton. I own the unit that borders the entranceway and my backyard would have a building right against the back fence. I have a lot of complaints about the project. I think safety and security is huge. I think one of the big ones for me is the lack of neighborhood engagement in this. The developer never has reached out to me directly. I went to one meeting because my neighbors told me about it, but i didnt get any notice from him. I got the notice for the first agenda, for the First Planning Commission meeting but nothing about the second one. The sign was taken down. So its especially i think after seeing the previous project where it seems like its been a dialogue between the neighbors and the commission and the developer, its discouraging to see the lack of interaction. It felt like when hes reached out to the community its been kind of a boxchecking exercise, and there hasnt been much followup, even with people that attended the initial meeting, they didnt get notification about the next meeting. He said he would send out notification, i never got that so i missed a meeting. Its been a discouraging lack of dialogue, the one meeting i did go to, someone asked what about trees and surroundings backyards, because we have some. And the reaction was like what trees, there are a few trees here, but there was no awareness that i have two trees close to the Property Line and where he is saying hell build. So its discouraging to see the lack of Community Engagement because i think we are open to there being something there. We would like it to be a discussion around something that actually works for the whole community, given how unique the lot is. And one other thing, the entrance is on fulton, and this hasnt come up, but theres no parking with this unit. And i also have concerns around the lack of parking and the fact that the 5r is important to the city and so many people commute on the 5r every day and theres going to be ubers and lyfts in front of this entranceway, getting in front of the bus, and a lot of people are trying to get to work, including me. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is medical melind. I live at 613 masonic. Im opposed to this project. Thank you so much for your time by the way. I forgot that. So im opposed to this project. And in large part because of the zoning issues that are here. And that none of this im totally for Affordable Housing, but none of this is going to be Affordable Housing. The developer, when we asked at the october meeting that we were inviteed to after vallie Browns Office got in touch with him and suggested that he contact us, we asked if he would consider blowmarket housing, and bel belowmarket housing, and he said he would not. If these condos were for Public Servants or other people who could afford belowmarket housing, i think a lot of us neighbors would be more for that. In this case, though, its these are going to be luxury condos. With all the variances and all of these the impacts that it will have on our community, its just really hard to support. At the october 22 meeting as well, the developer said mentioned something about noise and said, you know, it wont be like you are going to hear suitcases going up and down and up and down that long corridor. And it just scared us because it suddenly occurred, these are luxury condos, what would prevent them from being short term rentals. So now we have a bunch of airbnbs in our backyard. So in general, we are not for it. And one thing i wanted to mention, the tree, we are all concerned about the fire hazards and everything. The tree, the Developers Say is a special part of the project that they want to protect. Then theres the fire hazard. The tree itself is combustible, and its huge. So thats just something to think about. You cant really have it both ways. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is mary, i own the building at 631 and 633 masonic avenue. Ive lived there for 23 years now. I have many concerns about this project. I am opposed to the project in its present form. Im actually quite concerned about the tree. In the 20 years ive lived in this address, the tree has grown probably three to six feet in height, which means its a very, very healthy tree. The tree splits the lower part of a very significant slope. The slope comes down from ashbury street down to masonic avenue. So the fact that this tree is there, its being watered by the rains that come, thats the only source of water for the tree. The teresa tree tree as a caa live oak. They are threatened by pollution, development and soil compaction. Because of the fact there are going to be quite a few buildings on this parcel, there is very little space for anyone to go to or to stage during the development of the project while they are actually building. Theres not a whole lot of space except under the tree. Once the development is actually built, if it were to be built, there are proposed storage sheds along fences along the masonic and grove sides i believe there for bicycles. So automatically you are going to have people walking under the tree constantly to put their garbage or bikes or whatever. So you are going to threaten the tree during project construction, because of soil compaction. Also if the tree does survive that phase, then ongoing, while people are living there. If the tree is weakened, it could become susceptible to live oak disease, sudden oak death, which is endemic in the bay area. I know over golden gate park, they are quite concerned about this. They have arborists paying attention to the trees in the park, but this project doesnt have an arborist thats going to be around while the project is being built. What about after the project is built . Is anybody going to take care of the tree . Just today, there was a photograph that one of the neighbors sent around. There was a raptor in the lot. They use this space during annual migration. Its a beautiful amenity. We would hate to lose it. Im not opposed to development. Im opposed to this project in its present form. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Eric Davenport and i also love that tree. My wife and i have been living at 1850 grove street for almost ten years now. And i speak for everybody in the building right now. We are all opposed to this. Specifically one reason for me is it terrifies me because of the fire, and i know everyone is saying that but on the fourth of july, 2017, one of the backyards caught on fire. It was sparklers or fireworks or something. My wife and i happened to be looking out the window at the sky and all of a sudden we see some stuff fall down and then, boom, it goes up really, really fast, about ten feet high, i would say, im guessing. But luckily it was a still night. The fire burned itself out. It didnt get over the fences. But if there was a breeze, all those backyards would have been up. And anyone living in a place like this would be surrounded by fire with no way out at that point. So this terrifies me. All seven people in my building are way against it. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is jarvis rich. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I i live at 637 masonic. Its one of the lots on the side thats directly below this project, squarely. And i dont see how it improves the open space. If you were to look out of my rear windows where i have an office, you would see a very peaceful scene. And i dont think they are improving on that. With respect to the parking, i think we have lost too much parking too fast. Most recently masonic, which is a big cross town street has had all the parking removed and replaced with bicycle lanes. And bicycle wrecks have been on grove street, replacing four Parking Spaces. And the other side of ashbury, there are two Parking Spaces reserved for shared cars. I think i finished what i had. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to speak to you. My name is joseph. My husband and i live at 40 and 42 ashbury and rent out a unit there. Weve lived there for 23 years. I rise in opposition to this project. It is out of scale for the neighborhood. Weve already, as shown by the developer of this project, supported a lot of density in our neighborhood, and the traffic is horrendous. Its very unsafe for children and for elderly, handicapped people. So i have to say in my heart, its a beautiful green space that i dont think i could ever be enthusiastic about structures being built over. But i also, with a number of new families moving into our neighborhood, i feel very deeply the need for housing. So i hope that they can come up with a project that is smaller in scale and more suitable for our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, commissioners. Thank you for your time. My name is jessica. Im a homeowner of 1828 grove street. Our property directly abuts the live oak area of the project in question. I have three points that i wanted to emphasize to our new to the proceedings. I fully agree with everything that the other homeowners and renters in the area have articulated. The first new point i want to make is relative to the york project that you approved earlier tonight. Our block, our lots dont have any Water Management issues, that this project would solve in contrast to the york project where Water Management during the rainy season and the steep grade of that lot would be helped by the project. We do not face any such issues. The second part you heard in the york proceedings was that there were many homeowners who disliked the open space in their backyard. I think there was comments about rats and racoons. We strongly value the open space in our backyards, not just for the falcon and raptors but also the other wildlife and the ability to see our neighbors and have this open space. The last point was briefly referenced earlier, which is around potential crime to the folks that are around the project area. Our house has been broken into three times since we moved in in 2012, one of which was due to someone who hopped one of the low fences facing the open space. Our concern would be that with more units accessible through a breezeway, that there is heightened chance, especially if airbnbs or the like were to be an option for these units, that we could see an increase in crime through our backyard area, which today is relatively secure. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is jason chu. Im the owner of 1836 grove street and two separate lots and four units. I wanted to raise my opposition in the building variances. So the zero lot construction, which unfortunately impacts my lots the most. In terms of that, i would like to see a setback as to code. In addition, theres detriment to my property value, and i will show you and demonstrate later on how its going to reduce the number of affordable units in the area. Basically, im the Real Estate Agent since 1991. I have the accolade of being the youngest real estate licensee ever in california. Im a journeyman contractor. I have a m. B. A. In nonprofit real estate development, and thats one of my focuses. I acquired these Properties Near condemnation state. We worked with the city, department of Public Health and this commission to rehabilitate and provide Sprinkler System<\/a>. There will be no gas hookups which means they are electric appliances so if there is a failure on the electrical side, the sprinklers will not put out electrical fire. Theyll put out the other pieces but not the electrical fire. This body is geared to approve or deny variances, so theres a couple variances i would like to talk about. First is the rear yard. So as you can see from the design, this project is basically using a zero setback on 17 different lots. And all of those lots have setback requirements. So frankly, the neighbors dont understand why this project should be allowed to have a zero lot line. Also while the developer is saying theres only an eightfoot wall that will be used, if you look, they are all sloped. So they are not not eight foot walls. They are ten or 12 going up to 20foot walls. The parcels on the back, as you can see on the next image, on the right, thats a 20foot wall. Thats not an eightfoot wall. Next is on density. So this is an r2. So you are allowed to build Additional Units<\/a> with each additional 1500 feet. However, thats if you are including the setbacks and the year yard variances that mr. Fung, you brought up in the last issue. Those are not being respected in this design. This project is being built up against the fences of 17 different lots, roughly 40 different units. If you look at the variance application that was filed, youll see that they did not bring up the issue of auxiliary units. There are a number of auxiliary units, inlaws that are in various stages of legalization in the area. And also owners who are interested in putting in auxiliary units at later dates, i cant imagine this body or a future body is going to allow backtoback units to be allowed on zero lot lines so in essence all those 17 parcels will not be able to add an auxiliary unit should they want to in the future. This project which was brought up, i thought it was a great example of a project that the neighborhood could support. We are not here against development. What we are against are these variances which will allow for luxury condos to be built to maximize profits at the expense of us having our backyards. So you can see they built in the center of the parcel and they use the space on the outside to be able to create a buffer with foliage. The other thing i think is critical is theres a tenfoot access. Its the developer has three and a half feet of access which frankly is the minimum requirement. Its basically a breezeway. This site has ten feet which allows for access. The developer has taken Public Comment<\/a>, but that was only after we got in touch with our supervisor and she reached out to the Planning Department<\/a> and looked into this. Despite the Public Comment<\/a> comment, the developer hasnt changed any of the plans since the first submission, which sounds pretty different than the previous different. Construction on this project which i cant believe these images were provided by the developer. They want to do this all by hand, no cranes, no equipment. We are terrified they are going to get halfway through this and run out of money. So, yeah. [laughter] so the developer brought up other flag lotses like the oakwood lot in chelsea park. I think theres two differences. One, they have sand pipes coming out to the street as well as the york, there was no sand pipes in this development. Further, access for the oak street is via multiple entries and exits on multiple streets. So if there is a catastrophe, there are multiple ways out. We dont want people in the event of a fire, i mean shelter in place, if theres a fire and im in my house with my daughter, im getting out of my house, and if i have to go over the fence, im going over the fence, and thats what we are trying to avoid. Finally, i would like to point out we are not we are supportive of Affordable Housing<\/a>. We are supportive of a development in that unit that respects the zoning code which means it doesnt require substantial variances. It also would allow for something that is in the center of the lot so we are not looking at walls instead of fences that we currently have. We are really only looking for whats fair and equal treatment under the code for this project. So we want to avoid the potential for a catastrophe at this site, which is going to reflect back on the decisions that are made here tonight. So we ask that this project is not approved as its currently envisioned. Thank you. You still have a minute. Okay. You have been here a long time. Ill stick with that. Thank you. Okay. Any other Public Comment<\/a> on this item . Okay. I understand its late. My name is abby. I own the unit at 662 the development would be up against my garden, my fence. The thing that concerns me most is the fact they want to use my backyard for their setback. I love gardening, i love being out there. And what actually is going to end up happening is the enters goes from my backyard out. So i know that, for instance, like the garbage for all of these units is going to be right in front of my fence. Thats where they have to roll it out every week. Thats my garden. What else, the courtyard, actually, commissioner melgar, what you were saying with the york project, the courtyard that they had building community, seeing children playing there, they have a courtyard, but theyve excluded the existing neighbors. We dont have any access to their units except by i just find that when you said that comment, that really struck me. Again, brandon really presented it really well about building the auxiliary units and just visual impact, but thats it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Im on 1821 fulton. I own the unit that borders the entranceway and my backyard would have a building right against the back fence. I have a lot of complaints about the project. I think safety and security is huge. I think one of the big ones for me is the lack of neighborhood engagement in this. The developer never has reached out to me directly. I went to one meeting because my neighbors told me about it, but i didnt get any notice from him. I got the notice for the first agenda, for the First Planning Commission<\/a> meeting but nothing about the second one. The sign was taken down. So its especially i think after seeing the previous project where it seems like its been a dialogue between the neighbors and the commission and the developer, its discouraging to see the lack of interaction. It felt like when hes reached out to the community its been kind of a boxchecking exercise, and there hasnt been much followup, even with people that attended the initial meeting, they didnt get notification about the next meeting. He said he would send out notification, i never got that so i missed a meeting. Its been a discouraging lack of dialogue, the one meeting i did go to, someone asked what about trees and surroundings backyards, because we have some. And the reaction was like what trees, there are a few trees here, but there was no awareness that i have two trees close to the Property Line<\/a> and where he is saying hell build. So its discouraging to see the lack of Community Engagement<\/a> because i think we are open to there being something there. We would like it to be a discussion around something that actually works for the whole community, given how unique the lot is. And one other thing, the entrance is on fulton, and this hasnt come up, but theres no parking with this unit. And i also have concerns around the lack of parking and the fact that the 5r is important to the city and so many people commute on the 5r every day and theres going to be ubers and lyfts in front of this entranceway, getting in front of the bus, and a lot of people are trying to get to work, including me. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is medical melind. I live at 613 masonic. Im opposed to this project. Thank you so much for your time by the way. I forgot that. So im opposed to this project. And in large part because of the zoning issues that are here. And that none of this im totally for Affordable Housing<\/a>, but none of this is going to be Affordable Housing<\/a>. The developer, when we asked at the october meeting that we were inviteed to after vallie Browns Office<\/a> got in touch with him and suggested that he contact us, we asked if he would consider blowmarket housing, and bel belowmarket housing, and he said he would not. If these condos were for Public Servants<\/a> or other people who could afford belowmarket housing, i think a lot of us neighbors would be more for that. In this case, though, its these are going to be luxury condos. With all the variances and all of these the impacts that it will have on our community, its just really hard to support. At the october 22 meeting as well, the developer said mentioned something about noise and said, you know, it wont be like you are going to hear suitcases going up and down and up and down that long corridor. And it just scared us because it suddenly occurred, these are luxury condos, what would prevent them from being short term rentals. So now we have a bunch of airbnbs in our backyard. So in general, we are not for it. And one thing i wanted to mention, the tree, we are all concerned about the fire hazards and everything. The tree, the Developers Say<\/a> is a special part of the project that they want to protect. Then theres the fire hazard. The tree itself is combustible, and its huge. So thats just something to think about. You cant really have it both ways. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is mary, i own the building at 631 and 633 masonic avenue. Ive lived there for 23 years now. I have many concerns about this project. I am opposed to the project in its present form. Im actually quite concerned about the tree. In the 20 years ive lived in this address, the tree has grown probably three to six feet in height, which means its a very, very healthy tree. The tree splits the lower part of a very significant slope. The slope comes down from ashbury street down to masonic avenue. So the fact that this tree is there, its being watered by the rains that come, thats the only source of water for the tree. The teresa tree tree as a caa live oak. They are threatened by pollution, development and soil compaction. Because of the fact there are going to be quite a few buildings on this parcel, there is very little space for anyone to go to or to stage during the development of the project while they are actually building. Theres not a whole lot of space except under the tree. Once the development is actually built, if it were to be built, there are proposed storage sheds along fences along the masonic and grove sides i believe there for bicycles. So automatically you are going to have people walking under the tree constantly to put their garbage or bikes or whatever. So you are going to threaten the tree during project construction, because of soil compaction. Also if the tree does survive that phase, then ongoing, while people are living there. If the tree is weakened, it could become susceptible to live oak disease, sudden oak death, which is endemic in the bay area. I know over golden gate park, they are quite concerned about this. They have arborists paying attention to the trees in the park, but this project doesnt have an arborist thats going to be around while the project is being built. What about after the project is built . Is anybody going to take care of the tree . Just today, there was a photograph that one of the neighbors sent around. There was a raptor in the lot. They use this space during annual migration. Its a beautiful amenity. We would hate to lose it. Im not opposed to development. Im opposed to this project in its present form. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Eric Davenport<\/a> and i also love that tree. My wife and i have been living at 1850 grove street for almost ten years now. And i speak for everybody in the building right now. We are all opposed to this. Specifically one reason for me is it terrifies me because of the fire, and i know everyone is saying that but on the fourth of july, 2017, one of the backyards caught on fire. It was sparklers or fireworks or something. My wife and i happened to be looking out the window at the sky and all of a sudden we see some stuff fall down and then, boom, it goes up really, really fast, about ten feet high, i would say, im guessing. But luckily it was a still night. The fire burned itself out. It didnt get over the fences. But if there was a breeze, all those backyards would have been up. And anyone living in a place like this would be surrounded by fire with no way out at that point. So this terrifies me. All seven people in my building are way against it. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is jarvis rich. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I i live at 637 masonic. Its one of the lots on the side thats directly below this project, squarely. And i dont see how it improves the open space. If you were to look out of my rear windows where i have an office, you would see a very peaceful scene. And i dont think they are improving on that. With respect to the parking, i think we have lost too much parking too fast. Most recently masonic, which is a big cross town street has had all the parking removed and replaced with bicycle lanes. And bicycle wrecks have been on grove street, replacing four Parking Spaces<\/a>. And the other side of ashbury, there are two Parking Spaces<\/a> reserved for shared cars. I think i finished what i had. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to speak to you. My name is joseph. My husband and i live at 40 and 42 ashbury and rent out a unit there. Weve lived there for 23 years. I rise in opposition to this project. It is out of scale for the neighborhood. Weve already, as shown by the developer of this project, supported a lot of density in our neighborhood, and the traffic is horrendous. Its very unsafe for children and for elderly, handicapped people. So i have to say in my heart, its a beautiful green space that i dont think i could ever be enthusiastic about structures being built over. But i also, with a number of new families moving into our neighborhood, i feel very deeply the need for housing. So i hope that they can come up with a project that is smaller in scale and more suitable for our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, commissioners. Thank you for your time. My name is jessica. Im a homeowner of 1828 grove street. Our property directly abuts the live oak area of the project in question. I have three points that i wanted to emphasize to our new to the proceedings. I fully agree with everything that the other homeowners and renters in the area have articulated. The first new point i want to make is relative to the york project that you approved earlier tonight. Our block, our lots dont have any Water Management<\/a> issues, that this project would solve in contrast to the york project where Water Management<\/a> during the rainy season and the steep grade of that lot would be helped by the project. We do not face any such issues. The second part you heard in the york proceedings was that there were many homeowners who disliked the open space in their backyard. I think there was comments about rats and racoons. We strongly value the open space in our backyards, not just for the falcon and raptors but also the other wildlife and the ability to see our neighbors and have this open space. The last point was briefly referenced earlier, which is around potential crime to the folks that are around the project area. Our house has been broken into three times since we moved in in 2012, one of which was due to someone who hopped one of the low fences facing the open space. Our concern would be that with more units accessible through a breezeway, that there is heightened chance, especially if airbnbs or the like were to be an option for these units, that we could see an increase in crime through our backyard area, which today is relatively secure. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is jason chu. Im the owner of 1836 grove street and two separate lots and four units. I wanted to raise my opposition in the building variances. So the zero lot construction, which unfortunately impacts my lots the most. In terms of that, i would like to see a setback as to code. In addition, theres detriment to my property value, and i will show you and demonstrate later on how its going to reduce the number of affordable units in the area. Basically, im the Real Estate Agent<\/a> since 1991. I have the accolade of being the youngest real estate licensee ever in california. Im a journeyman contractor. I have a m. B. A. In nonprofit real estate development, and thats one of my focuses. I acquired these Properties Near<\/a> condemnation state. We worked with the city, department of Public Health<\/a> and this commission to rehabilitate and provide Affordable Housing<\/a> units to people. Thats what my family does. Basically the project that is proposed would cast shadows, block views, originally we thought there would be privacy issues because we have infants being nursed by mothers and their windows would face windows in other projects. Now im hearing theres going to be 20foot walls. I dont think thats conducive to a young childs development as well. As i said, 40 years ago we bought three properties on this block including 1850 grove, which i also lived, so i have a history of living there for 40 years. There were drug havens and needles, there was rat urine everywhere. It was a living room the size of a car. My tenants have told me they dont want to be living here anymore. Theyve been here 15 to 20 years. They dont want the monstrosities that they have to face every day. They dont want the noise. Even though theyve lived in rent controlled units in excellent conditions that i have maintained daily, weekly, monthly, annually, they dont want to live there. You are going to lose four units. In addition, i am a businessman. Although im a responsible, socially responsible businessman. I propose to you that you these four units i will not be allowed to build a. D. U. S. For the public record, i will build two brand new a. D. U. Units for free and give rent for free to s. F. Public teachers for five years if you do not allow this lot variance. [applause] okay. No clapping, please. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Im john. I live at 1829 fulton street, which is the house you saw in the photos next to the long walkway. And im here to express opposition to this development and primarily because of fire hazard. I literally walk by this passageway every single day. I can look down on it and the idea that when theres an emergency when theres fire back there that people, according to the developer, as i understand, the Sprinkler System<\/a> would mean that people would stay there when theres a fire, that they would hunker down and wait for the sprinkler to put it out. I dont know the about you, and my 20 month old son, i would get out of there immediately. And this walkway is like a shoulder way that i have. I dont really imagine that people are running out and fire crews are running in. I dont really understand that. I dont know code, i dont understand all the latest Sprinkler System<\/a>s. But i know people panic. I know these are going to be up against our againstline. I know if theres a fire, it would probably catch on fire with our fence. We dont have some fancy fence. Its a wood fence. And my son is there, and hes obsessed with fire trucks and firemen, maybe fire is top of mind, but somebody explain this to me. Its common sense, this seems crazy to me. Can you imagine if there was a fire and you couldnt get out . What were your options . You just wait in the center. If the pathway is obstructed you wait in the middle of the block next to old houses that dont have Sprinkler System<\/a>s and hope you are going to get out . There is no other way out other than this three and a half foot walkway. It does not look like an entrance for maybe 20 different people to go in and out in an emergency. And so we express a lot of concern about that. We also heard from long time neighbor that the center of the block was supposed to be a fire buffer. Its no longer a fire buffer for us but could be a risk for fire for us. And of course we have concern for the people who live in the center too. I dont think its just about us either. So there is concern about construction. I did look through the window and see that they are going to be using materials that arent as vulnerable. But my fence is flammable. Their materials might not be but my house is flammable thats right next to us. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. Last time i was here it was good afternoon. Im a renter. I live on golden gate avenue so im in the neighborhood. Im also an Haight Ashbury<\/a> neighbors for density. I want to express support for this project. I just wanted to kind of talk about the opposition youve heard. And you listen to neighbors whose lives will be changed by a new house but theres someone you havent heard from tonight. The people you havent heard from are the people who will get to live in the buildings. We are talking about kids growing up in a small threebedroom house. And they get to grow up in one of the biggest cities in the world. They are going to grow up blocks from golden gate park. They are walk to the park on a weekend. You are not going to hear from a young couple who want to move in together and want more space than a studio. That voice will not be heard tonight. You are not going to hear from a new professional who maybe just got that job that will let them move out of their parents basement. Those are words you are not going to hear from. And all these people are people who are going to thrive living in a city where they can get on a bus, go to work without burning up the atmosphere from driving cars and use the bike lanes that we have been trying to install throughout the city. They are going to have all the advantages of living in the city. I want to headache face my last few seconds and talk about the opposition i want to take my last if you seconds and talk about the opposition. What is a luxury is to be able to say sorry, i own this other builder and i dont want housing built near me because its going to shade my garden because im body about an airbnb or a parking space in a world thats burning. Theres suggestions of we should go back to the process, lets talk about the process. Lets talk about the process on york Street Building<\/a> had. The building took 32 years to get built. 32 years. As i said before, im 31. I want a place in the city where i can raise my kids, not my grandkids. You have the opportunity to build housing for the future, please get it done, not in 31 years but this year. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is henry. I live at 1831 fulton street. I also live right next to the 100 by three and a half feet breezeway through which all the entrances and exits will take place. Im definitely not opposed to development. Im absolutely not opposed to trying to prevent people from moving into San Francisco<\/a>. Ive lived there for 12 years. I thoroughly enjoy San Francisco<\/a> and would love to see more people there. But not with this development. There are some differences between this development and all the other flagged lots including the york street one. First is in the area of community involvement. As some of my neighbors mentioned, there has been very Little Community<\/a> involvement. I never received notice on any of the three community meetings. I went to the first one through wordofmouth. A neighbor of mine said theres this meeting. So i attended it, left my email address, had been in touch with the project sponsors and received no notice for the two other meetings. I was surprised to hear that they happened. The comparisons to york street to oakwood and others are vastly different. And the main there are several reasons they are different, but the main one is that this is serviced only by one narrow three and a half foot, 100foot breezeway, as many of my neighbors expressed, there is a lot of concern about safety, people trying to get out at the same time the First Responders<\/a> are trying to move in with equipment, hoses, stretchers, whatever. The third point is the scale of the development. While the project sponsor has mentioned that the density is lower than some of the comparables, what ive experienced from where i live is that its going to be two tories right against my fence, right up my fence. Theres a slope and then theres a second story. So its going to block my enjoyment of my yard. Its going to cast shadows. So i would urge the commissioners to vote against this project as its currently constituted. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is julia. I am deeply troubled top here, because i had on my calendar to be at the meeting for Haight Ashbury<\/a> for density. Increasing our density is critically important. Living at 1854 grove street, i have looked down this ally many times. I want to demonstrate something to you. Could not walk down this access point. Could not pass each other. This is a very long passageway. I do not understand how units with potentially 15, 18 people can live at that length down a passageway in which two people carrying groceries could not pass each other. Thats all. Thank you. Okay. Any other Public Comment<\/a> on this item . Okay. Come on up. Did you already go . Yeah, sorry. [off mic] im sorry, you are out of order. Sir, you are out of order. Thank you. So with that, Public Comment<\/a> is now closed. Commissioners . Okay, commissioner koppel. Every thursday doing our best to approve housing dense if id, shrink the housing density, shrink the housing shortage. We are not trying to be exclusionary. I am going to say i like this project, i want something to be built here, but i cant ignore the extreme concern of not looks or little tiny details but their lives. And im going to prioritize our existing residents over our future residents. I wanted to ask a question about that life safety system. Will it extinguish an electrical fire . Thank you, commissioner. To be honest, i dont know about an electrical fire, but i would make the point that the framing of the home will be metal framing. Its not plywood and 2x4s so theres nothing combustible to catch on fire, except, you know, furnishings, the carpet, the table, so theres no real ignition source. In terms of an electrical fire, if there is a short or electrical fire, it would normally be, the breakers would trip and shut off the power in that event, because there would be a short circuit, and thats what they are designed for. So the continuous ignition from the electricity would not be there. The breakers would shut off, and theres no fire. Thank you. I would like to hear what the other commissioners think. Commissioner moore. Im concerned that the 3 6 addressing portion of the project is far too small to have anybody read that theres a substantial piece beyond. The fact that most of these units are built to closely to each other makes this project appear more like a barracktype assembly than putting five units in a looser arrangement into the lot. The fact that they are all sitting literally on the Property Line<\/a> with 17 other units further creates the impression that the project is too dense for where it is. It is not the density on the lot, per se, but the way the units are arranged creates a massiveness for the surrounding residents while the interior is informally arranged, i think that doesnt quite carry. Whoo i was concerned about when i started making dots on where the entrances are, where windows and bedrooms are, that there was a significant amount of lack of privacy or intrusion of privacy among the units with each other. When you follow that path, people are getting to the front doors by directly walking by the bedroom window of the adjoining unit. And i found that not just an exception in one case, but i found that pretty much throughout. I believe that this project needs to run im not sure how to say this. Its difficult to compare this project with york street, particularly the entry feature to york street is a building thats an integral part to the project which is beyond it. Here, i believe, the project almost a detriment to the adjoining units which are being affected by this. Imagine picking up the garbage can. Three and a half feet on this type of circulation pass is almost impossible. So i believe there is something that doesnt quite work. Im not sure what the answers are, but at this moment i cannot support the project as its being presented to us here. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. [off mic] its also kind of interesting that i see in your story, adjacent to a Property Line<\/a> . Yes. On golden . Interior. Interior stores . Storage. The trash and the bicycle path. Is that what you are saying . Yeah. I guess its a little difficult to [off mic] i share commissioner moores concerns with the 3. 5 breezeway breezeway, entry point. [off mic] if you were to normally do [off mic] between your structures and the adjacent neighbors. This went it, it opposite way. Went the opposite way. So im not sure what to say. Okay. So before i let you speak again, commissioner moore, im going to give you my integrations. So i work in youth development. And one of the things that they, you know, one of the tenants is that you say all the assets first, you know. You just kind of like so i will tell you what i like about the project. And im not going to repeat some of the things that the other commissioners have said. But i do have some things that havent been said. I love the green roof. I think that that is a great solution. And i think it works, especially if its lower than other buildings. So i do like that. I like the skylights in the green roof. I think that works too, very well. I like it that you are preserving the tree. Im a tree person, so i love that. And i do like the interior courtyard. I think that that works well. So the things that i think could be improved upon are that i understand that it was rdat maybe that insisted on it being lower than the other ones. But that the buildings surrounding it. Is that what happened . Yeah, i mean its a team process. And generally speaking, this is fairly similar to when it was first admitted. The Property Line<\/a>s within the bulk of the lot, maybe was a built by it taller. And our review and the meeting with troy, we came up with the solution of in certain places, we incorporated setbacks to where it would obstacle be one story or in other places a sloped roof to help balance out, providing some floor area for the units while also trying to respect the Property Line<\/a>s. Yeah. So i got to say that the structure coming right up against the Property Line<\/a>, that doesnt work for me. And i would rather have height in the middle of the lot and space in between than lower. I get it, its a trade off. And this is such a difficult site, and its a very denselybuilt environment. So i get it that we are making trade offs. I love the living roof. But ive got to say, if this were my house, you know, i would have a really hard time with it. Compounded with the life safety issues. Because i get it with the materials, but i still dont understand how you are going to get Construction Equipment<\/a> in there. Even if its done by hand. Thats thats a lot. I dont understand it. So the big difference with york street, of course, is that they had that block in the first, and you could phase it and build everything and then build that structure last, and you can get cranes in there and everything. You cant do that here. Im not really sure how you are going to do it. But even if its metal frame, you are still going to have to be doing welding, you are going to be doing stuff there thats right against the Property Line<\/a> of other folks. And so those that really concerns me. I dont like it. I wouldnt approve it. And then the 3. 5 whatever it is, long i still, you know, you said that it was very similar to york street, but i didnt hear any specifics. So i would like to hear that again how it is, you know, where is the fire hydrant, where is the shutoffs . Whats the plan . Where will people congregate . So im not convinced. And to me, that compounded with the structures being right against the Property Line<\/a> is just a no deal for me. So. You can come back up and tell me if you have something more specific other than that its just like those guys. Sure. Thank you. I thought i had five minutes with this presentation and i could have gone into more detail in the original. I dont want the rest of the presentation, i just want the answer. Sure, in terms of the fire safety issues. To be clear, its the first 50 feet that is effectively four feet wide and then it widens out to five and a half. And the reason the Fire Department<\/a> said that was fine is because the 20foot height limitation. And what thats based on is thats based on a ladder. So they can reach the roof of a 20foot building. And ours is below 20 feet. We are at 19 feet, with a 24foot ladder, and thats carried by two men, carrying it like this, next to their bodies. A larger building takes four people, because you have a 35foot ladder, and they carry that side by side. So we went through a long exercise with d. B. I. Fire check who ran it up to the fire marshal. I see. So thats the justification for why three and a half feet. Secondly, we have a standby. Theres a hydrant in the other corner they can hook up. Pump water into that sand pipe, and we have two interior sand pipes within the property. They also wanted the red curb zone. We discussed i can talk more about the fire Sprinkler System<\/a>. But the fire if you talk to a firefighter they say you got a call on a system, that fire is out before we get there, its fully extinguished. And each of these cottages have individual firewalls up against each other, so its not like an apartment where you have one shared wall with a onehour fire rating. You have a twoonehour fire ratings between each property. So its very compartmentalized so it doesnt spread from unit to unit like it would be with an apartment building, again, if there were anything to burn which would be your furnishings, blankets, its not the structure. They have asked for a firemans key box at the gate. The other thing i would mention is if you imagine you are a San Francisco<\/a> singlefamily home, you have bedrooms at the back. And sometimes you dont have a passage to the street. What the Building Department<\/a> says is if you can crawl out that bedroom window, and you have a 25foot backyard, you are considered sheltered in place far enough from the hazard, right . You are in your backyard and your building is on fire. So theres a bulletin which they apply. And it says 25 feet is the magic number. So from any one of these units you can get to another place on the site that has this 25 feet away, thats easily 50 feet away from any one unit thats on fire fire. Theres other questions about exiting. I understand now the issue with the height and the fire. Thank you so much. Thank you. That actually doesnt help me in terms of making this decision, but now i understand it. I think its maybe one or two units too many, you know . Because of the way that the access is and how it sits with all of the Properties Around<\/a> it. Okay. Commissioner moore. Thank you for saying what you said. Because if you look at drawing 801, you realize that its not just cottages, its basically a completely connected building form, joined the entire side, given that the west side as well as the east side has a large portion of storage sheds and other utility structures, which completely fill out the sides. So i would agree with you, commissioner melgar, that less would be more. And that would be creating fewer units in a slightly more informal way that compliments the openness of the surrounding backyards and do not completely dominate the entire space in which the buildings sit. I think it requires a redesign. It requires reduction in unit numbers, potentially reduction in unit size and still leaves the overall attitude of how the building reads to the street as an address very unrevolved, because i personally dont believe that it is enough. That its mostly the width of a tradesman entrance in other parts of the city, and that is not very convincing to me. But as far as building mapping and side organization, i think this project needs to do other things to properly respond to the surrounding development. Commissioner fung. Given the chance to create a more sensitive solution, and address some of those im not as concerned about the fire issue as is my fellow commissioners. Im acceptive of what the other departments do. But the issues that we normally deal with, you know, how is the noise handled, people coming in and out, deliveries made. What do people see from their rear yards and a lot of this stuff is right up against the Property Line<\/a>. So i would support a continuance and give them an opportunity to see if they can come to a more sensitive design and perhaps come to a lesser number of issues that their disagreement with their neighbors. Okay. Commissioner diamond. [off mic] its not on. You just turned it off. When i read the packet, i was extremely worried about the fire danger and spoke to staff about it in detail, and im appreciative of the information that was handed out today that indicated the numerous ways you are going to address it, some of which are similar to york street. But as i focused on the site plan and saw that you had zero lot lines and heard all of the operational issues, you know, i just dont understand how you are constructing this with a 3 work passage way. I dont see how you are getting dirt in and out. But even if you solve those problems, i do believe that you should work on the design and that less density may address some of these issues, but i would also ask you to focus on how you are going to deal with garbage and move in and move out and the noise concerns so even if we get beyond the fire marshal signing off on this, i still want to know how you are going to make this function. But the idea of being able to add additional housing back there has a great deal of appeal to me. So im hopeful that you are work on this and come back and address the concerns you heard today. I had one more question for staff, because a couple of folks during Public Comment<\/a> talked about a. D. U. S in backyards. So can you talk to that issue . Just explain whether that is a thing, if theres anything that can be done to remedy it or so are we talking about the subject property . No, absolutely not. Just to refresh you, during the Public Comment<\/a>, several commenters said if the structures are built right up to the lot lines, then i cannot build an a. D. U. Generally speaking they wouldnt be able to build a. D. U. S out of the blue regardless of what happens with this lot. Whats happening at the subject property has, no, no, impact on whether or not they can build a. D. U. S. Generally speaking they cant because of where a. D. U. S are permitted. I dont see any reason why a development on this landlocked lot would prohibit development on other properties under building codes, you have to meet your code requirements onsite. You cant rely on other properties. Thats not a thing . It was never articulated how they would be prohibited. It was said they would be prohibited. So unless the public has Additional Information<\/a> they could share. Okay. You can share it with him. Thank you very much. Did somebody make a motion . You said a continuance. Did you make the motion . I didnt but i will. Thank you second. Move to continue this to allow project sponsor to revisit his design. How much time do you think . Three months . At least two. Okay. That will put us into february 13. Not a lot of time with holidays and stuff. You want to go march 12 . Yeah. Second. Very good. On that motion to continue this matter to march 12, [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 60. Zoning administrator. Ill continue the variance to march 12. Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us on items 18a and b for case numbers 2018015446cua and var at 740 clayton street. You will consider the conditional use authorization. The Zoning Administrator<\/a> will consider the request for variance. Good evening, commissioners. Planning department staff. The project before you is requesting conditional use authorization to allow five dwelling units at clayton street, which is zoned rh3 and only permits three dwelling units. Conditional use authorization alis for one dwelling unit for 1,000 square feet of lot area with approximately 4600 square feet of lot area. The project is requesting a variance from the rear yard requirement as one of the dwelling units is located in an existing storage area in the rear yard. The current use of the subject property is as a church and Single Family<\/a> dwelling. The church has been vacant for three years. The project proposed to convert the church and dwelling into a threefamily dwelling, construct for a fourth unit and convert the storage into the fifth dwelling unit. The department received one comment on the project which expressed concern about plastic traffic and parking. The Department Finds<\/a> it to be compatible with the general plan and desirable for the community. It repurposes existing structures while maximizing density creating little to no impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you. Im available for any questions. Thank you. Yeah. Good evening, commissioners. Mark on behalf of the project sponsor. Youve been here a long time so well try to keep this brief. The architect is here to answer designrelated questions that you may have. As he said, this project proposed an adaptive reuse of two existing structures on the site nahorsonal addition. It replaces a large and vacant resident and church with five moderatelysized condo units meant to appeal to potential homeowners of all walks of life. You can think about the project as three components, one, converting the main structure into a threeunit building with two condos and one three bedroom that would be between 1100 and 2400 square feet in size. Two, constructing a new threestory, threebedroom unit on the footprint of the propertys driveway, making good use of the space. It would be about 1400 square feet, and three, converting the rear Carriage House<\/a> into a onebedroom unit. The two and threebedroom unions would be ideal for families in a neighborhood that doesnt have many opportunities for new condos. I want","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803101.us.archive.org\/7\/items\/SFGTV_20191214_090000_Government_Access_Programming\/SFGTV_20191214_090000_Government_Access_Programming.thumbs\/SFGTV_20191214_090000_Government_Access_Programming_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}